SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 687

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Prateek Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. - Respondent
CW / 702 / 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2025

The court affirmed the right to operate non-disputed funds in a bank account while cooperating with ongoing investigations into alleged fraudulent transactions.

Headnote:

(A) Banking Regulation Act - Section not specified - Writ petition concerning freezing of bank account due to alleged fraudulent transactions - Petitioner claims no misuse of account and willingness to cooperate with investigations - Respondent-Bank seeks to maintain freeze on disputed amount while allowing operation of non-disputed funds. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Legal principles regarding the operation of bank accounts during investigations - The court emphasizes the need for cooperation with authorities and the right to operate non-disputed funds. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to unfreeze his bank account, asserting no involvement in illegal transactions and readiness to cooperate with investigations. The respondent-Bank froze the account due to a fraud investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Bank to de-freeze the account, allowing the petitioner to operate it while freezing only the disputed amount.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of freezing the account and the petitioner’s rights to operate non-disputed funds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must cooperate with investigations while allowing access to non-disputed funds, emphasizing the balance between investigation and individual rights.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

ORDER :

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayers as indicated in the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never misused his bank account for the purpose of illegal transactions and has not committed any Cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Agencies and will appear before the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies as and when called upon. He, therefore, prays that the disputed amount which has been received in petitioner’s account may be freezed but, the amount other than the disputed amount may be allowed to be withdrawn. He further prays that the petitioner may be allowed to operate his bank account for the transaction of money.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed in pursuance of Acknowledgment No.22909240067085 issued by Tamil Nadu Dindigul Dindigul Town North, Demat/Depository Fraud Department, Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel for the respondent- Bank also submits that till the matter is pending investigation, the bank account of the petitioner may not be closed and he my be directed not to discontinue the bank account until the investigation is completed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable with the submissions made by counsel for the respondent-Bank.

6. In view of the submission made before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the bank account No.1911225921578040 of AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. of the petitioner and he may be allowed to operate the transaction in his bank account, freezing only the disputed amount which is allegedly involved in a fraudulent transaction.

7. It is made clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the Bank Authorities and the Investigating Agencies and will appear before them as and when required. It is also ordered that the petitioner shall not close or discontinue his bank account till the Investigating Agencies and Bank Authorities permit the petitioner to do so. It is further ordered that after the investigation if the petitioner is found involved in any illegal transaction, he shall be liable to pay the amount involved in the illegal transaction and will face the enquiry/investigation as per the law. It is further ordered that the respondent-Bank will be free to transfer the disputed amount from the account of the petitioner to the account from which it has been transferred in his account.

8. Stay petition and other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top